|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
332
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 14:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Protip for the future: if your computer is logged in 24 (or way more than a person can) hours a day making money in a way that is meant to be active and you're not in front of it you're probably doing something wrong
Why is this being handled by Team Security instead of the GM team? It appears Team Security's only involvement in this case should be clearing the false positive botting mark against the account, then turning it over to the GM team which is in charge of determining what is and is not an exploit when no bots/hacks/etc is involved. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
332
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
I mean "the automated systems handling it" isn't something you've decided on as the proper way to handle non-bot eula violations: it's that the automated systems are creating a false positive and you're refusing to fix it. This isn't a botting issue, and it shouldn't be being handled by the botting team.
The algorithm ****** up. It should be fixed, not defined as "not ******* up" and team security taking over part of GM responsibilities instead of fixing it.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
335
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
100% passive income has been a part of this game since datacore agents were invented, and especially since PI was introduced. Both allow you to make money with less "at the keyboard"ness than this.
It's not a team security issue and team security has no business declaring it botting: it should be punted to the GM team and the game design team for exploit determinations and fixing respectively. The GM team exists to make consistent decisions that respect previous decisions on how the game can be played, and to provide the proper layers of asking things be looked at again by a fresh set of eyes. It has no business being the province of an algorithm gone rogue. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
335
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: What you're referring to was never mentioned in the news item. You're deciding for yourself what the news item means and applying it in a way that is not what is discussed. This has been edited in the news item and repeated more than once in this thread, but you're still deciding that I'm staring through the internet at you waiting for you to walk away from your PC instead of what the content of the news article is really about which is extreme and isolated scenarios where people are able to login at downtime, release sentries, and go do something else until the next downtime.
If you think it's an exploit, then the GM team should be alerted to the details and allowed to handle it as they see fit. We're all 100% clear it's not a bot, it's not RMT, it's not a hack, and so there's no reason for team security to be involved. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Nobody ever said anything about passive income. Every example of passive income mentioned thus far has been designed purposely to be so. This was not. It becomes a security issue when it is egregious enough to be virtually identical to botting. The GM team is aware of this news item and the details and the game design team has committed to fixing the problem.
If you have some insight that I don't as to what is or isn't my team's responsibility however please feel free to clue me in because it seems to differ from that of my boss. There was no botting issue here. This was started by your algorithm thinking that someone was a bot, them challenging that, and the decision being made to decide they were a bot despite no botting software, macro software, game hacks, or the like. Instead of fixing the issue with the botting algorithm (suggested fix: if the client isn't sending server commands it's probably not botting because it's not doing anything), team security decided to take over running enforcement of edge cases where 100% legitimate game behavior allows for something the game designers decide is a bad idea.
There's no good reason for team security to be involved because they don't know what has/hasn't been decided in the past, they don't have layers of review to handle hard cases fairly (if something's a hard case, like 100% legitimate game behavior doing something unexpected you want several sets of eyes on it reviewing it independently, such as regular and senior GMs). Team Security should deal with stuff the GMs are incapable of handling: botting detection, RMT, hacks, and the like that does not involve 100% in-game behavior. Things involving pure in-game behavior is what the GM team is designed to handle and it's their job to handle.
As for the "designed/non-designed" thing (which is nonsense: half of EVE is about doing things that were not designed, from hotdrops to defensive SBUs), here's this:
Say I idle in a NC. system with the name "down with goons" and a bio saying all donations go to fighting goonswarm in some verifiable way, say by a public api (though I keep a percentage, making it personal income). Every so often people go "damn straight down with those goons" and send me money. Am I a bot? I'm just parked in space, cloaked. I suspect I would be, because I'm logged into game making money and the combination of the two would trigger your algorithm (since it clearly doesn't take into account failing to send any commands at all to the server).
Hell, I make passive income every day from simply holding various items that will appreciate in value: fortunately your algorithms don't detect that sort of thing or I might get banned for holding guidance systems as they steadily appreciate in value even if I'm unsubbed. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: It was edited once because people misinterpreted my comments to mean that we were banning activity that we aren't. This seems to still be the case. There is a very specific situation which caused this detection which is essentially warping into a particular cosmos plex at downtime, dropping your sentry drones, applying reps to them then leaving your computer until the next downtime. This is possible because in that particular room the drones respawn..
So warn the GMs, have them pay attention to that plex, and don't have the botting algorithm banning people for not-botting? This isn't botting, it's someone figuring out a spot where money rains down on you and standing in that spot. It's not botting, it shouldn't be considered botting, and if you need to get told "sorry we decided you can't stand on that spot" the GM team should be doing it.
This is being delt with by Team Security because of a false positive: this should be used as a case study of types of false positives and the situation handled normally. Hell, it might be a good idea to tweak the algorithm to say "hey this guy appears to be making purely passive income but without botting" and use that to alert the GM team - but it shouldn't be banning a notbot as a bot. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: We aren't looking for that action. We're looking for bots. In this case the behavior is similar and it is being abused 24 hours a day. Therefore, we are treating it the same.
It's not a bot. It's 100% agreed its a NotBot. There's no reason for it to be treated as "the same" except that the algorithm to detect bots detected a NotBot as a bot. There was no reasoned decision to start treating cases like this where a NotBot is making money in a way that CCP has decided shouldn't be, and the bot detection algorithm changed to do so. Instead, the bot detection system decided a NotBot was a bot, and after proof was supplied the algorithm was wrong, the algorithm was redefined to be right. That's a bad policy and this should be given back to the GM team and the algorithm fixed. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Except that the strawman you're presenting isn't the situation we're discussing or saying we're going to be handling and has no bearing or relevance on this particular discussion. We would not be having this conversation based on that activity.
Exactly!
You're making rules. When you make rules, those apply to new situations you didn't think of. That's what the GM team knows, and that's why they're very careful about making rules because they understand those rules apply in new circumstances unforseen at the time.
The GM team has rules and gives rules to players to allow them to shape their behavior so they don't get punished after the fact for something legitimate. Rules are a good thing: but rules get applied to more than just the situation that made you make the initial rule.
It's not an excuse to say "well, that is different and not what we're talking about". You're making a rule, and that means that it needs to hold up in circumstances you're not looking at right now. That's why it should be handed back to the team in charge of working with players to make rules, so they can make a clear rule for players and deal with the situation appropriately. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
339
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: You can say that you prefer that we allow people to AFK farm complexes with sentry drones 24 hours a day and that's a position we'd disagree with, but it's a position.
It's really hard to respond with facts to completely made up scenarios so if we're to have a dialogue of this sort at any point in the future hopefully we can stick to what actually happened instead of how you've decided in your head the process went or how the reporting structure works.
I don't really. I do have a problem with an automated system going rogue and banning people for things that are different than what it is supposed to ban people for, and that failure being redefined into a success. The proper method for dealing with this exists and I want that used both now and in the future.
If a GM had come out and said "we've investigated this and decided it shouldn't be allowed anymore", that'd be one thing. That happens - for example, pos bowling was legitimate and then after human review people decided it was a bad mechanic that needed to be banned until it was patched out. But players in that circumstance should have the ability to deal with a GM just like anyone doing anything else on the edge of the game rules but without violating the bots/hacks/macros/rmt rules.
And those rules should be thought about ahead of time (by humans) and then applied prospectively. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
339
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Anyone who was performing the activity I'm referring to in the news item has most likely already been banned for doing so. Another item about the belt ratting bit is that in the scenario you paint the amount of income gained is basically nothing. In the scenario we're specifically discussing in this thread you are making a lot more money. By a factor of a whole bunch.
What amount of money changes NotBotting into Botting, given the exact same use of game mechanics? |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: It's not about botting. It just so happens that this is the discussion we're usually having when we're talking about this type of behavior.
:edit: In this case someone was making significant income running their PC 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The system designed to detect that did. Enter news item.
Of course this is about botting. It was detected by the "never a false positive" botting system, botting sanctions (presumably including the 'no character transfers' sanction) were applied, and the activity was described as being effectively the same as botting when - according to the rule players have for what botting is, "using a bot" - it isn't, all make this an issue where we're talking about botting. And we're talking about botting because Team Security is handling it instead of the GM team. And it's not that there was internal deliberation over who ought to handle this. The sequence of events was that Team Security had a false positive and flagged a NotBot as a bot. Botting sanctions were applied, and the player at issue petitioned to prove he was not a bot and did so successfully. In response, Team Security declared that it didn't matter he was a Notbot instead of a bot, and declared that the botting algorithms flagging him as a bot were not a false positive. That response wasn't from a GM. That was from a member of team security.
Only after outrage over this response, presumably, was this internal deliberative process invoked where Team Security had already taken over, to confirm what had already happened. That was a mistake. Team Security deals with botting issues, and we know this is a botting issue and not a standard "spirit of the EULA" issue because it's only botting issues that bypass the GMs.
You also, again, give us a really bad rule when you say you can't get a "tangible benefit" from afk activity: afk cloaking gives me an extremely tangible benefit. I deny my opponent income, give myself the chance for kills, get hilarious rage in local. Used en masse, I can shut down an enemy alliance's income stream (as in a post-tech environment ratting and renting fees are your income) allowing me and my friends to take over a region. In fact, this is commonly used for this exact purpose. None of these are raw isk, but it's still an extremely tangible benefit you can quantify relatively easily.
There's a reason the GM team deals with these rules: they're used to thinking them through and giving players good, clear, and fair rules that are intended to apply anywhere they would reasonably be thought to apply rather than simply one-off cases where the rule given doesn't apply anywhere else. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Naomi Shana wrote:That boner, plus the plain old :CCP: knee-jerk heavy-handedness of "let's punish players for using what we've given them instead of addressing the code issue", has everyone concerned. Except for the part where they said they're working on a way to fix the plexs that cause this issue, right? Or is it more fun to pretend you didn't read that part so you can complain louder and look sillier? Most of what you've been claiming in this thread is completely disproven by the actual sequence of events at issue. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:immediately start implementing sleeper & Incursion AI on missions & complexes you don't see these being AFK'd now do you? This is not a case of the players doing something wrong this is a case of CCP doing something wrong. This is most definitely a case of the players doing something wrong. That you can't see or comprehend that is down to your own narrow-sightedness. The mechanics that prevent Sleeper and Incursion sites from being AFK farmed 23 hours a day have absolutely nothing to do with what allows static PLEXes to be AFK farmed for 23 hours a day. Giving the static PLEX NPCs Sleeper AI would do nothing to curb this botting problem. Banning the botters will. There is, according to everyone involved, no bots involved here. This is not botting. It never has been botting. It never will be botting. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
346
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: A challenge!
Accepted - where's your reference to the "actual sequence of events"? I'll take a look at your sources and gladly reconsider my standpoint.
I found out from one of the people who got the false positive.
The sequence of events was they received an automatic botting infraction. They petitioned, describing precisely what they'd done and how no bots or macros were involved and explained this was a clear false positive. They were told (by team security) this was not a false positive: as they were making money afk they were enough like botting that it was the same as botting.
Needless to say they felt this was...not correct, and continued to argue the position. Then, and only then, is where anyone not from Team Security got involved in order to bless the fait accompli that Team Security was now exercising control not over bots, but over things that Team Security decided were exploits. At no point before this is there any indication that GMs or game design was involved. To be honest there's not even any real indication they will be involved in the future: the false positive will simply now be declared to be enforcing the "no afking in a complex" rule as well that Team Security declared and enacted. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: The rule, as you dubbed it, is misleading. They didn't declare "no afking in a complex". Go reread the news item.
There is no actual rule here. There is a "if you get detected as a bot, because you do this, you will be banned. This probably applies anytime you get detected as a bot, regardless of what you were doing" statement but no actual rule that I can apply.
And there was no GM intervention because GMs do not respond to petitions regarding botting bans: those are directly shunted to Security. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Since it's WAY easier for me to quote CCP to tell you where you're wrong, here you go: CCP Sreegs wrote:The activity itself falls within the same philosophical context we place botting within. CCP Sreegs wrote:Nothing has changed about our philosophy as regards what we are or aren't looking for behavior-wise. If you look like a bot and you act like a bot, chances are you'll be identified as a bot. It's really not that difficult a concept to wrap one's head around. Wrong. CCP admits that it is not a bot there. They admit they misidentified a non-botter as a botter: they then refuse to correct that mistake. It is the last part that is at issue here. Nobody, besides you and the algorithm, believes this player was an actual botter. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote: Nope. Wrong again. But you're used to that now. Nobody believes this player was a botter, myself included. However, as Sreegs clearly put it, the actions of this player and others like him "falls within the same philosophical context we place botting within." It's not hard to understand.
I am gratified you've now come to understand the basic fact this player was not botting.
Now that we've nailed down the facts of the case, we are discussing the interpretation and actions placed on those facts - the thin pretext by which these actions are being justified as being caught by the botting system and handled by Team Security as bots instead of properly handled by the GM team. In this case since I am arguing Sreegs was wrong, it is pointless to simply repeat his statements I disagree with. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: Do you feel that removing the ban and the strike against these detected players is unfair then? Were their pleas ignored? It doesn't seem so.
It's very correct to remove the botting sanctions against these players. That should have been done immediately, the botting detection fixed, and the issue of if this was proper player behavior punted to the GM team to determine and deal with. Team Security shouldn't be determining legitimate and non-legitimate gameplay when it doesn't involve things directly in their area of expertise: RMT, bots, hacks, and macros.
If the GMs decided this was inappropriate they have all the tools they need to handle it. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote: but CCP GMs/Devs/whoever (it's irrelevant who handles it) .
It is not; and it is your failure to understand this that causes our disagreement. I have, unfortunately, already explained this part at length so I won't bore people by repeating it. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cifese wrote: Let me rephrase that in a way that will explain why he won't tell you:
Actually, the previous rule was abundantly clear and easily applied: "any use of a bot or macro makes it botting". Now, if legitimate gameplay is botting if it exceeds certain isk thresholds, suddenly we don't have an abundantly clear and easily applied rule. |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: They did correct the mistake. They've erased the ban on these people.
The mistake wasn't identifying them - it was banning them before letting everyone know this is also a bad thing to do. They've now unbanned them, and let everyone know this is a bad thing to do.
The individual mistaken punishment was corrected: the algorithm has not been and the incorrect handling of the issue has not been. That means this will continue to be an issue in the future. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Until that "legitimate gameplay" is ruled otherwise, as is the case here, and that "legitimate gameplay" is forced out. At this point, nobody will be banned or otherwise sanctioned who isn't in clear violation of the rules. Of course! And at that point, we can get the GMs involved to craft and enforce good rules. The rules suggested by Sreegs keep, you know, not working. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cifese wrote: If they tell you (or anyone) what the actual ISK level over 23.5 hours is that is a flag, people will just set their bots to stop below that level. Then it's one less tool in the box to stop botting.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if Sreegs hadn't said that afk moneymaking that did not involve a bot was fine as long as it did not exceed a certain threshold. If Team Security wasn't trying to enforce their own newly-created rules via the bot detection system we wouldn't need to ask questions about what is and is not legal that involve bot-detection info. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
351
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kiyarii Oskold wrote:So I feel the need to risk a generous fellow player and repost his details here, as the backstory to this is a brilliant piece of true Eve emergent gameplay that will otherwise be covered over by CCP rather than championed. This is even more brilliant than I'd expected, I like this writeup. Thanks! |
|
|
|